Charles Lechmere interesting link

[MrBarnett]

The question surely is 'Was Lech close enough to the body to have stepped back a few paces on hearing Paul's approach?' The answer's yes and unless we can imagine an astute copper writing him off as a suspect because he was a few feet away, then Fish's point is valid, even if couched in terms that encourage a suspicious interpretation over a possible innocent one.

MrB

[Fisherman]

You need to start getting your facts right before you can have a debate with anyone Christer.

He wasn't found by Nichols side. You know fine well that is not true, yet you keep telling people he is.

Again you know for a fact that this is not true.

This is what I mean. Mislead people to make your case stronger. If you look at the facts, Paul found Lechmere in the middle of the road and they both went to Nichols side together. Puts a different light on things doesn't it?
And in all the thousands of posts about Lechmere over the past few years, has anything new been added to try and incriminate him? No. It is the same old stuff which is churned out all the time.

Rob

Iīd much rather you answered my question to you - we can find out in no time at all if Lechmere is a good suspect that way.

Since I feel in a charitable mood, I will answer YOUR que... eh, accusations first:

Was he found by the victims side? That is a question of interpretation. If we claim that we cannot be found by a victims side without touching sides with the victim, then you have a point. Otherwise, it is not a very useful point at all.
Robert Paul stated, respectively, that he was "standing where the body was" and that Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road". "In the middle of the road" does not have to mean in the exact middle of the road, it simply means that he was standing out in the road. He could have been physically very close to the body.

I have seen many films etcetera where people saying "Iīm right here by your side" have been physically many yards away from the person they are speaking to. If Lechmere had sat down three yard from the body, on the kerb, he could have said afterwards that he waited by the bodyīs side, and he would be correct.

Here is what is actually misleading: to lead on that the two, victim and killer, were far apart and thus not connected in any suspicious manner, by claiming it is "misleading" to say that Lechmere was found by the side of the victim.

As for the other point, Robert Paul says that he saw Lechmere as he approached Browns stable yard. He says nothing about seeing him any earlier.

So he comes up to Lechmere, who is standing still in the "middle of the street", without knowing what Lechmere did before that.
That actually means that Lechmere was alone with the victim until Robert Paul stumled upon him just as I said.

Maybe you have some semantic point to make - you often have - but that changes very little. Before Robert Paul arrived, Lechmere was in place and nobody else was.

If he was there alone for just some seconds or if he was there alone for many minutes is an open question.

There, thatīs YOUR answers. Now, would you agree that a person found alone in the vicinity of a murdered person must always belong to the suspects until cleared?

(Hint - I donīt think I will have any answer this time either...)

Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

Not as far as I know. I've already parted with my knowledge and wisdom on that subject.

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

I sense the beaters have put that particular fire out, and as most of us know bugger all about Aussie rules football, this is the only game in town.

MrB

[Lechmere]

Has the Kelly MJK3 photo thread been locked or something?

[Lechmere]

Patrick
You won't get any discussion from me on any topic. Life's too short to bother with you.
If other's do then that's their choice.

[Rob Clack]

You need to start getting your facts right before you can have a debate with anyone Christer.

And are you saying that:

-the fact that Lechmere was found by a victims side

He wasn't found by Nichols side. You know fine well that is not true, yet you keep telling people he is.

-the fact that he was alone with the victim until being stumbled upon by Robert Paul

Again you know for a fact that this is not true.

This is what I mean. Mislead people to make your case stronger. If you look at the facts, Paul found Lechmere in the middle of the road and they both went to Nichols side together. Puts a different light on things doesn't it?
And in all the thousands of posts about Lechmere over the past few years, has anything new been added to try and incriminate him? No. It is the same old stuff which is churned out all the time.

Rob

[Fisherman]

If he was such a strong suspect, the best one, then you wouldn't have the need to mislead people and let the facts speak for themselves.

Rob

Well, letīs check if he IS a strong suspect, then!

1. Would you agree that a person found alone in the vicinity of a murdered person must always belong to the suspects until cleared?

Fisherman

(Hint - this is where I think you will decline to answer. But I am prepared to be surprised!)

[Rob Clack]

Oh, I DID get the inference, Rob. What I pointed out is that he is not a weak suspect.

He is in fact the best one.

Admittedly, up til the pre-Lechmere time, the best suspect WAS a weak suspect in many ways. But that has changed now.


The best,
Fisherman

If he was such a strong suspect, the best one, then you wouldn't have the need to mislead people and let the facts speak for themselves.

Rob

[Fisherman]

It is what you are doing with Lechmere.

Rob

Oh, I DID get the inference, Rob. What I pointed out is that he is not a weak suspect.

He is in fact the best one.

Admittedly, up til the pre-Lechmere time, the best suspect WAS a weak suspect in many ways. But that has changed now.


The best,
Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

I donīt have the faintest idea what people do with weak suspects, Rob.

Fisherman

It is what you are doing with Lechmere.

Rob

[Fisherman]

Still misleading people Christer? I suppose that's what people do with a weak suspect.


Rob

I donīt have the faintest idea what people do with weak suspects, Rob.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You are not going to entice me into your tedious and pointless 'suspect' discussions. Do get a life.

I have one. In some respects, it resembles yours - we both post out here.

And I was not really expecting that you would let me "entice you" into any debate. I felt rather convinced that you would just provide the negative oneliner with no facts or information about the case involved and then scuttle off.

Bye,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I have questioned and arrested dozens of crime suspects, was a tutor constable and trained around sixty officers to do the job, have dealt with dozens of sudden deaths, witnessed many autopsies, acted as coroner's officer, trained and been part of the firearms team, and have been involved in murder investigations. How does your police record stand?

I donīt think I need have to have a police record to inquire about your service. It obviously is of interest that you have police experience, and it makes a difference if you were a beat copper in Cropredy or if you were a senior murder investigator in London.

Not that I think that a retired police officer would necessarily be the best bid for somebody to solve the Ripper riddle. Just as such a background can be useful in some instances, it can probably be much less useful in others. Iīve sen policemen out here that have produced input of wildly differing quality, something you may agree about.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

And are you saying that:

-the fact that Lechmere was found by a victims side
-the fact that he was alone with the victim until being stumbled upon by Robert Paul
-the time given, that should have Lechmere half a mile down Hanbury Street at 3.45
-the covered up wounds
-the correlation between murder spots and Lechmeres working routes
-the discrepancy beteen what Lechmere and Mizen said at the inquest
-the lack of hearing Lechmere on Pauls behalf
-the name change
-the arrival in working clothes to the inquest
-the correlation between his mothers house and the Stride murder
-the finding of the torso very close by his mothers place

...would not interest a seasoned policeman?

Were those thirty years served in a murder squad at any time?

Mr Barnett says it would be silly not to investigate further, but you seem to be of a different meaning.

If you think it would not be necessary to investigate further, how do you justify that take on things? Why is this gathered evidence of no consequence? How does it amount to a bee in a bonnet only?

Is it your police expert hunch, or can you substantiate it?

All the best,
Fisherman

Still misleading people Christer? I suppose that's what people do with a weak suspect.


Rob